Zinger v. Brands
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-03993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Zinger v. Bai Brands, Judge Subramanian granted Bai’s request to seal specified exhibits and keep related motion passages redacted.
Bai Brands, LLC, Zinger’s class-certification filing, the public’s access to the specified exhibits and motion passages, and consumers whose identifying information appears in one exhibit.
What happened
In Zinger v. Bai Brands, LLC, Bai Brands asked the court to seal Exhibits 2–5, 7–9, and 16 to Zinger’s class-certification motion and keep related passages redacted.
Bai said the materials contained confidential product-development, marketing, advertising, branding, market-research, and product-strategy information, as well as personal identifying information for consumers. It argued that disclosure could harm Bai’s ability to compete and invade privacy interests.
The court granted the sealing request and directed the clerk to terminate motions at ECF Nos. 63 and 59. Judge Arun Subramanian entered the order on September 23, 2025.
The detailed version
- Zinger v. Brands · No. 1:24-cv-03993
- Subramanian
- Sept. 23, 2025
Background
Bai Brands, LLC asked the court to seal Exhibits 2–5, 7–9, and 16 attached to Zinger’s motion for class certification. Bai also asked the court to keep redacted the portions of that motion that described or cited those exhibits. The materials had been designated confidential under a protective order in the case.
Information at Issue
According to Bai’s request, the exhibits included confidential product-development and strategy information about Bai Water; a draft message containing marketing-strategy information; confidential market research; marketing and advertising strategy; information about a bottle transition and product reformulation; internal discussions about consumer inquiries concerning a product ingredient; and consumer names, email addresses, and telephone numbers.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The request discussed the general public-access right for court records and the court’s authority to protect sensitive business information and personal identifying information. It relied on cases recognizing that confidential, competitive, or proprietary business information may justify restricting access. The court marked the request “GRANTED” and directed the clerk to terminate motions at ECF Nos. 63 and 59. The order addressed sealing and redactions; the provided text does not decide the merits of the underlying dispute or the class-certification motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.